Re: [PATCH 2/2] Document the --histogram diff option

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

Thomas Rast [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <redacted>
---

This is only the minimal update.  I think in the long run, we should
add a note saying why we support all of them.  But off hand I didn't
have any substantial evidence in favour of patience that could be used
as an argument.

Isn't the main argument made by proponents of patience diff is more
readable output, and not performance?  That line of argument relies
on a fairly subjective test "which one is easier to read?", so it is
hard to come up with a substantial evidence, unless somebody invests
in A/B test.

Well, I was just too lazy to look up what I dimly remembered people had
posted at some point: examples where patience beats Myers for
readability.  E.g.,

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/104316

I don't think you need a blind test to justify that the patience result
is more readable.  So I think in the long run, the docs should say
something like:

--diff-algorithm={histogram|myers|minimal|patience}::
       Choose a diff algorithm.  The variants are as follows:
+
--
histogram::
        This is the fastest algorithm, and thus the default.

myers::
        The classical Myers diff algorithm.  <state a reason why myers
        would be useful>

minimal::
        Like 'myers', but spend extra time making sure that the diff
        is the shortest possible for the set of changes performed.

patience::
        The patience diff algorithm, which first matches unique lines
        with each other.  This sometimes results in more readable (if
        longer) patches than the other algorithms.
--

Or whatever -- magic is required to have a nested list in asciidoc.
I can't be bothered to twiddle with that right now.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch